Kevin, Can you please compile a kernel with INVARIANTS and INVARIANT_SUPPORT enabled? That would help us greatly with this problem. Thanks, Jeff On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Attilio Rao wrote: > Kevin Gerry wrote: >> #0 doadump () at pcpu.h:195 >> 195 pcpu.h: No such file or directory. >> in pcpu.h >> (kgdb) bt >> #0 doadump () at pcpu.h:195 >> #1 0xc060cb73 in boot (howto=260) at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:409 >> #2 0xc060cd6f in panic (fmt=Variable "fmt" is not available. >> ) at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:563 >> #3 0xc086954c in trap_fatal (frame=0xe40d3b9c, eva=20) at >> /usr/src/sys/i386/i386/trap.c:870 >> #4 0xc0869e8c in trap (frame=0xe40d3b9c) at >> /usr/src/sys/i386/i386/trap.c:276 >> #5 0xc0853afb in calltrap () at /usr/src/sys/i386/i386/exception.s:139 >> #6 0xc063b008 in propagate_priority (td=0xc3ab5e00) at >> /usr/src/sys/kern/subr_turnstile.c:272 >> #7 0xc063b989 in turnstile_wait (ts=0xc3a9e6e0, owner=0xc3ab5e00, >> queue=Variable "queue" is not available. >> ) at /usr/src/sys/kern/subr_turnstile.c:739 >> #8 0xc060140d in _mtx_lock_sleep (m=0xc0993228, tid=3284357632, opts=0, >> file=0x0, line=0) at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_mutex.c:395 >> #9 0xc04decd7 in em_handle_rxtx (context=0xc3b63000, pending=1) at >> /usr/src/sys/dev/em/if_em.c:1477 >> #10 0xc0639e72 in taskqueue_run (queue=0xc3be1880) at >> /usr/src/sys/kern/subr_taskqueue.c:255 >> #11 0xc063a04f in taskqueue_thread_loop (arg=0xc3b632ec) at >> /usr/src/sys/kern/subr_taskqueue.c:374 >> #12 0xc05ee896 in fork_exit (callout=0xc0639fd0 <taskqueue_thread_loop>, >> arg=0xc3b632ec, frame=0xe40d3d38) >> at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_fork.c:797 >> #13 0xc0853b70 in fork_trampoline () at >> /usr/src/sys/i386/i386/exception.s:205 >> (kgdb) list *0xc063b008 >> 0xc063b008 is in propagate_priority >> (/usr/src/sys/kern/subr_turnstile.c:273). >> 268 ts = td->td_blocked; >> 269 MPASS(ts != NULL); >> 270 MPASS(td->td_lock == &ts->ts_lock); >> 271 /* Resort td on the list if needed. */ >> 272 if (!turnstile_adjust_thread(ts, td)) { >> 273 mtx_unlock_spin(&ts->ts_lock); >> 274 return; >> 275 } >> 276 /* The thread lock is released as ts lock above. */ >> 277 } > > Jeff can better comment on it, but for what I can see it seems that > ts->ts_lock is not acquired again once the new assignment from td->td_blocked > is done and I think it should be. > > Thanks a lot for your report, > Attilio >Received on Fri Jun 22 2007 - 17:10:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:13 UTC